My apologies I was not trying to spark a debate. I just shared what I honestly thought. I thought that perspective might help other readers as well.

I just think to truly get an understanding of what your sharing, the kids need to be on a regular exercise or activity program and a regular healthy diet. For me that would be more accurate and I'm sure other readers will feel the same way.

I imagine the funding for that would be a lot higher, and probably too much for the study to be conducted in the first place. Not to spark a debate again, but I feel it's important to share, I think it may be a disservice to people reading the study. Because when people here study they think of it as fact a lot of times.

Sparking an honest debate should enhance the study due to my replies relevance to the author and authority figures. Either to discredit my rebuttal completely or to agree a little or completely agree.

To say my rebuttal has to do with funding makes me think my thought process could be relevant if the funds were present to bring it about. Which is a disservice to the overall goal of the study.

My conclusion to your reply is I may be right if the money was there, however since the money isn't, your going to spark an argument.

For such a sensitive health concern, especially when kids are concerned, arguments should never come into the picture. Only healthy debates.